Planning “Discrete” Movements Using a Continuous System: Insights from a Dynamic Field Theory of Movement Preparation

The timed-initiation paradigm developed by Ghez and colleagues (1997) has revealed two modes of motor planning: continuous and discrete. Continuous responding occurs when targets are separated by less than 60° of spatial angle, and discrete responding occurs when targets are separated by greater than 60°. Although these two modes are thought to reflect the operation of separable strategic planning systems, a new theory of movement preparation, the Dynamic Field Theory, suggests that two modes emerge flexibly from the same system. Experiment 1 replicated continuous and discrete performance using a task modified to allow for a critical test of the single system view. In Experiment 2, participants were allowed to correct their movements following movement initiation (the standard task does not allow corrections). Results showed continuous planning performance at large and small target separations. These results are consistent with the proposal that the two modes reflect the time-dependent “preshaping” of a single planning system.

Unifying Representations and Responses: Perseverative Biases Arise From a Single Behavioral System

A dominant account of perseverative errors in early development contends that such errors reflect a failure to inhibit a prepotent response. This study investigated whether perseveration might also arise from a failure to inhibit a prepotent representation. Children watched as a toy was hidden at an A location, waited during a delay, and then watched the experimenter find the toy. After six observation-only A trials, the toy was hidden at a B location, and children were allowed to search for the toy. Two- and 4-year-olds’ responses on the B trials were significantly biased toward A even though they had never overtly responded to this location. Thus, perseverative biases in early development can arise as a result of prepotent representations, demonstrating that the prepotent-response account is incomplete. We discuss three alternative interpretations of these results, including the possibility that representational and response-based biases reflect the operation of a single, integrated behavioral system.